Assessing the Impact of Father-Absence from a Psychoanalytic Perspective

Kim A. Jones

ABSTRACT. This article examines the role of father and effects of his absence within the context of psychoanalytic theory. The article begins by exploring some of the earliest psychoanalytic writings on the father and his role in child development. The literature describing the effects of father-loss/absence from a developmental perspective is then presented within the framework of the four central psychologies of drive/structural theory, ego psychology, object relations theory and self psychology. Treatment implications are then discussed in regard to five central areas of assessment: (1) the quality and nature of attachment to father; (2) fathers role during the first and second separation-individuation; (3) Oedipal issues; (4) fathers capacity to have functioned as an important selfobject; and (5) the nature and quality of the paternal representation. A case is then presented followed by a discussion of the clinical implications when assessing father-child dynamics. The article concludes by outlining societal trends that elevate the importance of understanding the fathers role in child development and the necessity for therapists to competently assess paternally based issues that clients bring to treatment. doi:10.1300/J032v14n01_03 [Article copies available for a fee from The
Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.] Kim A. Jones, PhD, LCSW, is Associate Professor, 2801 University of Arkansas, Little Rock, School of Social Work, 2801 S. University, Little Rock, AR 72204 (E-mail: kajones@ualr.edu). The author would like to thank Tracy Allred for her helpful contributions to this paper. Psychoanalytic Social Work, Vol. 14(1) 2007 Available online at http://psw.haworthpress.com 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1300/J032v14n01_03

43

44

PSYCHOANALYTIC SOCIAL WORK

KEYWORDS. Role of father, psychoanalytic theory and father, childfather relations

INTRODUCTION In 1900, Freud wrote that the loss of ones father is the single greatest loss a person can experience. Some of the earliest psychoanalytic writings on the effects of father-absence emerged from Anna Freud and Dorothy Burlinghams observational work during World War II in Englands Hampstead Nurseries. They observed that in fantasy, the mental images of the parents, particularly that of the father, who was the parent away most often, undergo great changes compared with the real parent in the childs past (Freud & Burlingham, 1943, p. 61). It was noted that these fantasies developed in relation to the father, but were not directly due to the fathers influence (Freud & Burlingham, 1973). In fantasy, the paternal images seemed better, bigger, richer, more generous and more tolerant than they have ever been (Freud & Burlingham, 1943, p. 61). Many of the boys who possessed such an idealized paternal image had in fact never even seen their fathers in reality. Freud and Burlingham suspected that they acquired the paternal representation from other nursery children who had gone home and interacted with their fathers and then returned to spread the conception of the father through the rest of the group of youngsters (Freud & Burlingham, 1973, p. 658). As the missing, or in some cases, dead father, was idealized, Freud and Burlingham also observed a specific repression of any negative feelings toward the father. They noted that both the idealization and the warding off of negative affect are used largely to embellish and maintain the positive side of the child-parent relationship (Freud & Burlingham, 1943, p. 73). THE ROLE OF FATHER The impact of father loss or absence can best be understood within the context of the fathers role in child development. The role of father, from a psychoanalytic perspective, was first described by Sigmund Freud, who thought the father played an important role in both the pre-Oedipal and Oedipal phases of child development. Freud suggested that the development of a loving attachment to the father, most particularly for boys, was crucial for both healthy development and resolution

Kim A. Jones

45

of the Oedipal stage. Freud hypothesized that boys experienced the father as a competitor and prohibitor of incestuous sexual impulses, an object of envy and hate, and someone who provokes guilt and fear (Freud, 1921). As Dorothy Burlingham (1973) pointed out, Freud also saw the father more positivelyas a protector, and that of a great and Godlike being that is idealized by the small child. Up until the early 1940s, post-Freudian notions of the father-child relationship focused primarily on the fathers role during the Oedipal period. During the mid-1970s and early 1980s, a number of papers and books on fathering began to appear in the literature, mainly from American writers. In 1979, Ross referred to fathers as the forgotten parent, in the psychoanalytic literature. In the last several decades, proponents of ego psychology, object relations theory, and self psychology have expanded the role of the father in child development. Within the context of these theoretical frameworks, the father is seen as an attachment figure in his own right (Abelin, 1971, 1975; Lamb, 1997); facilitator of both the first and second separation-individuation period (Blos, 1967, 1984, 1985, 1987; Mahler, 1968; Mahler & Gosliner, 1955; Mahler & McDevitt, 1968; Mahler, Pine, & Bergman, 1975); as an internalized other (Davids, 2002; Fairbairn, 1941, 1944, 1952, 1958, 1968); and as a selfobject (Kohut, 1971, 1977, 1984). The father is also seen as aiding in the modulation of libidinal and aggressive drives (Herzog, 1980, 2001); tempering the ambivalence generated within the mother-child bond (Winnicott, 1964); as a container for projected anxiety that originates in the mother-infant relationship (Davids, 2002); and as originator of triadic psychic capacities (Abelin, 1971, 1975). FATHER LOSS FROM A PSYCHOANALYTIC PERSPECTIVE For the past 60 years, the psychoanalytic literature on father-absence has tended to look at the effects of loss within a developmental framework and from the perspective of the four central psychologies: drivestructural theory; ego psychology; object relations theory; and self psychology. Research has tended to focus on the developmental level attained by the child at the time of the loss and how the loss impacts cognitive, integrative, structural, and defensive capacities (Krueger, 1983; Trunnell, 1968). Infancy and early childhood. Loss or absence of the father was thought to have negative consequences for the child as early as the prenatal period

46

PSYCHOANALYTIC SOCIAL WORK

and is associated with later behavioral problems (Huttunen & Niskanen, 1978). Loss of father in the first year of life has the potential to impact the mother and her ability to be fully immersed with the infant, which may in turn disrupt the optimal need gratification/frustration rhythm. For the infant, this alteration in attachment may then lead to impaired development of self and object differentiation, reality testing, frustration-tolerance and the capacity for basic trust and confidence, and disrupt the proceeding tasks of separation-individuation (Newman & Schwam, 1979; Santrock, 1970; Trunnell, 1968). It was also thought that loss of father before the age of two could potentially have profound effects upon narcissistic development (Burgner, 1985; Krueger, 1983). Psychoanalytic investigators, in describing the emotional and psychological manifestations related to father-loss/absence before the age of five, have noted such themes as heightened fears involving object loss and abandonment, combined with an intensified wish for maternal closeness (Burgner, 1985). Father loss was also thought to stimulate fears in regard to the normative regressive process that occurs during sleep, as well as intense anxieties in relation to drive discharge (Herzog, 1980). Eva Seligman (1982) worked with several adult patients who described themselves as half alive. A common theme among these patients was childhood loss of father. Seligman hypothesized that not having a father present disrupted the normative separation-individuation process and left them fixated at a pre-Oedipal level of development. A prominent theme that emerged during the analysis of these patients was the degree and intensity of both abandonment and engulfment anxiety, which left them overly dependent upon their mothers. Seligman thought that the father played an essential role in mediating the transition from the womb to the world (p. 10). The Oedipal period. Psychoanalytic research regarding the Oedipal period has tended to focus on the impact of father loss on males. Without the presence of the father, the boy may be inhibited in the development of certain perceptions, reality testing and the acceleration of sexual fantasies. The normal age-specific competitive feelings, fears, and humiliations, with which the boy must learn to cope, have no reality figure with whom to work them out, and thus may become highly distorted (Neubauer, 1960). Ferenczi (1940) emphasized a fixation on the lost father in early histories of homosexual males. This condition, he thought, was due to the absence of the otherwise unavoidable conflicts between father and son, while Aichorn (1925) was impressed with the inadequate ego-ideal of the father-absent boy.

Kim A. Jones

47

Latency through adolescence. Loss of father during latency has shown to cause a regression to the Oedipal level of psychosexual development (Gauthier, 1965), and to deprive the child of a sense of mastery and industry, which comes from development of skills and talents through modeling and identification with the father. As in earlier phases of development, loss at this stage may also result in an over-idealization of the paternal representation, which prevents a later deidealization and normative gradual withdrawal of narcissistic cathexis, which is required for the acquisition of structure forming internalizations and may result in a narcissistic fixation in addition to delayed entry into the peer group (Kohut, 1971; Newman & Schwam, 1979). Kohut postulated that this pattern of events is not necessarily pathological in that such fantasies . . . may be formed, consciously elaborated, and temporarily clung to in response to an external deprivation which requires the postponement of a developmental task (pp. 83-84). The ongoing longitudinal work of Judith Wallerstein and Joan Kelly provide the most detailed impact of father loss during the period of latency-adolescence (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1974, 1976, 1979, 1980, 1984, 1987, 1989, 2000). Their original study involved a non-clinical population of 60 divorcing families, with 131 children between the ages of two-and-one-half and eighteen years of age at the time of the marital separation. The children in the early latency age group, which covered an age range of five-and-one-half through eight years of age, experienced moderate levels of depression, a preoccupation with the loss of father, combined with intense grieving and longing for his return and associated his leaving with rejection (Wallerstein, 1987). Children in the older latency age group (nine through twelve) showed intense anger at one or both parents and were more likely to develop somatic symptoms, a shaken sense of identity, and a regression in super-ego controls (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1976, 1980). For the adolescent group, Wallerstein and Kelly noted that the normative developmental task of separation-individuation was greatly altered in response to the marital separation and ensuing changes in family structure and perceptions of parents. At the 10-year follow-up, the preschool children in the original study had reached early adolescence. At the time of the marital break, these children were between two-and-one-half and six years of age. They had experienced the marital rupture with intense emotional pain, neediness, a high level of regression, acute separation anxiety, and fears of abandonment (Wallerstein, 1984). At the 18-month follow-up, these children, especially the boys, had deteriorated even further. In relation to the father, Wallerstein noted, that Whether absent or visiting regu-

48

PSYCHOANALYTIC SOCIAL WORK

larly or erratically, whether living three blocks away or in a distant state, the noncustodial father remained a significant psychological presence in the lives of these children (Wallerstein, 1984, p. 454). When they lacked information regarding the father, these children constructed an image of father, one suitable to their developmental needs at the time. The frequency of visits over the years was not directly linked to the childs attachment to father. In fact, some of the strongest feelings associated with father were expressed by those children who saw him the least. A reoccurring theme for the latency age children at the 10-year follow-up was again the loss of father. As in the younger group, the father remained a significant psychological presence in their lives. In many instances there existed no apparent link between the father for whom they yearned and the actual father. Wallerstein concluded from these and other findings that there is evidence . . . that the need for the father as a benign image, if not a real presence, increased during the adolescent years (Wallerstein, 1987, p. 207). A link was also established between the relationship with father and overall psychological adjustment with both boys and girls. However, the quality of the father-child relationship was significantly related to good or poor psychological outcome in boys only. Wallerstein added that a boys perceptions of his fathers feelings toward him, and his need for affirmation and encouragement from his father, appeared to be of critical significance at this time (p. 208). She linked this increased need for father during this period as stemming directly from the boys need to maintain psychological distance from mother and related engulfment fears, as well as the need for a figure of identification and his supportive role in entering the outside world. Wallerstein conducted a 25-year follow-up that included participants of the original study. In this follow-up Wallerstein and her coauthors (2000) interviewed several adult children of divorce and found the effects of divorce were indeed long lasting. Wallerstein noted, The impact of divorce hits them most cruelly as they go in search of love, sexual intimacy, and commitment (p. 299). This group also carried intense anxiety into adulthood about relationship and intimacy issues in addition to anger at parents, most particularly fathers, who were seen as selfish and faithless (p. 300). Wallerstein found with few exceptions, fathers in divorced families did not have close connections with their children, especially their sons. Wallerstein added that this pattern stood in marked contrast to fathers and sons from intact families, who tended to grow closer as the years went by (p. 301).

Kim A. Jones

49

TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS Whereas both drive theory and ego psychology have emphasized the role of father in child development, traditional object relations theory, both the American and British schools, has tended to overfocus on the mother-child relationship, resulting in an overemphasis on maternal contributions to both healthy and pathological development. Additionally, there has been the timeworn tendency to blame mothers for child psychopathology in both research and practice, while minimizing or completely ignoring the contributions fathers make (Phares, 1997). An optimal practice approach is one that encompasses knowledge of both maternal and paternal contributions to development and ultimate character formation. When assessing paternally based issues, the clinician should be familiar with the unique contributions fathers make to overall psychic development. It is from this position that an assessment can be made as to whether the patient is struggling with distortions or manifestations of deprivation as this relates to the father and his functions. Drawing from the psychoanalytic literature, there are generally five central areas, or domains, to consider in regard to father; they include (1) the quality and nature of attachment to father; (2) fathers role during the first and second separation-individuation, which includes fathers capacity to have acted as a container for anxiety and regulator of ambivalence; (3) Oedipal issues, which include the nature of the childs triangular relationship with mother and father, in addition to modulation of aggressive and libidinal drives; (4) fathers capacity to have functioned as an important selfobject; and (5) the nature and quality of the paternal representation. Each of the five domains correspond to paternally based functions that if not present, can eventuate in deficits or distortions that are oftentimes compensated for in pathological and dysfunctional ways. The model presented here suggests that the clinician be familiar enough with the literature surrounding the five domains to be able to focus in on the most salient area(s) that best organizes the clinical material. CASE EXAMPLE The case involves a 14-year-old boy named Sam, who grew up having had little contact with his father. Sams biological mother and father divorced when he was a little over two years of age. Up until the time of the divorce, Sam was described as a daddys boy by his mother.

50

PSYCHOANALYTIC SOCIAL WORK

Shortly after the divorce Sams behavior took a turn for the worse: he became extremely aggressive and destructive. An example of how out-of-control Sam could become occurred one evening when he picked up a baseball bat and almost completely destroyed his room. By age seven Sams aggression had escalated even further: he was now hitting and biting himself, spitting, cursing, and destroying furniture in the house. Sam had also threatened to kill himself by cutting his wrist. Even though Sams mother was justified in leaving his father because he drank excessively and couldnt hold down a job, still she was left with overwhelming guilt for having caused Sams loss. At age eight Sams mother remarried and his violence worsened to the point where mother was forced to admit him to a local psychiatric unit. At this juncture Sam was hitting and kicking his mother and stepfather, and at one point threatened to kill them both. Sams threat to kill himself was also an ongoing theme. Sam never really felt attached to his stepfather, even though there were times when stepfather attempted to reach out to him. Sams behavior at home and how he was being managed by mother provoked several arguments between Sams mother and stepfather and, after about one year of being married, they divorced. Sams relationship with his mother remained extremely conflicted and turbulent. Sam would typically go through periods of pushing mother away, saying he hated her and wished her dead, followed by desperate attempts to regain a connection to her. Sams most potent way of regaining the connection to mother was to cut himself, or threaten to harm himself in some way. Such threats were sure to elicit her guilt and a more caring and concerned response. With the connection reestablished, Sams relationship with his mother briefly improved. However, the least amount of frustration would send the cycle back into motion and Sam would once again direct his hatred and rage toward mother. When Sam was 10, his mother decided to send him on a visit to see his father, who by this time lived in another state. Up until this point in time, Sam had spoken with and seen his father only sporadically. Sams father was unemployed and abused alcohol and drugs on a daily basis. On the visit Sam and his father spent their week together doing what they both loved bestworking on old cars. Following Sams return home his behavior quickly deteriorated and he was once again hospitalized for out-of-control and aggressive behavior. When Sam was 11, his mother remarried for a third time. Once again Sams behavior escalated: He began destroying items in the house, mutilating himself with broken glass, arguing with and repeatedly defying his new stepfather. Sam was once again admitted to an area psychiatric hospital. During this admission

Kim A. Jones

51

the therapist who was assigned to Sam and his family brought up the issue of Sams relationship with his stepfather and biological father. Sam told the therapist that his stepfather was trying to take my place, which he greatly resented. He also accused the stepfather of having abused him. However, there was no evidence or substantiation of such abuse. In fact, his current stepfather was being very patient with Sam, and like his first stepfather, was attempting to engage him. The stepfather was becoming increasingly frustrated with how Sam so easily manipulated his mothers guilt and argued with Sams mother over how to better manage him. Mothers relationship with Sams second stepfather, as had been the case with the first stepfather, became increasingly strained by the chaotic home environment. In later sessions, Sam contradicted his stories about abuse and then denied any abuse had even occurred. Sam was reluctant to speak poorly of his biological father, even though his mother thought that deep inside Sam was angry with him. Instead, Sam talked about how much he enjoyed working on cars with his father and how he wanted to become a mechanic someday. Mother reported that, even from an early age, Sam had always had a love for cars, and that playing with cars or looking at pictures of them in a magazine, always seemed to calm him down. The worst punishment for Sam was having his mother take his cars away from him. As therapy proceeded, Sam was able to gradually reveal his anger and disappointment with his father. He even wrote his father a letter that revealed how disappointed and angry he was in regard to their relationship. However, Sam could not send the letter: He feared his father would never speak to him again. As Sams anger toward his father surfaced, his aggressive behavior decreased. He spent the next several sessions struggling with his inner dread of becoming just like his father. As therapy progressed Sam became increasingly comfortable with discussing his anger and disappointment with regard to his father. He no longer made excuses for his fathers shortcomings and was starting to take more responsibility for his own actions and learning more effective ways of managing his feelings and impulses. This case exemplifies the importance of assessing the impact of the missing or absent father. In regard to the five above-mentioned domains, it is apparent that attachment and separation-individuation issues, along with the internalized object representation of Sams father vis--vis his own internalized representation of self, seem most pertinent. Sams father left the family when he was two years of agea point at which separation-individuation issues are at a crises level (Mahler, Pine, & Bergman, 1975). According to Mahler, rapprochement is marked by an

52

PSYCHOANALYTIC SOCIAL WORK

ever-increasing awareness of separateness that results in heightened feelings of vulnerability, helplessness, and fear of object loss. The rapprochement crisis involves a conflict between the wish to be separate, alongside a wish to have ones needs met magically without awareness that help emanates from without. The child, during this phase, clamors for omnipotent control, experiences intense separation anxiety, and alternates between the need for closeness and autonomy. Rapprochement can be a period of intense mood swings, general dissatisfaction, and temper tantrums. Interestingly, studies have shown that a boy will typically turn to his father as a preferred attachment figure during this period, providing the father is present and available (Abelin, 1975; Lamb, 1997). Mahler saw the father as becoming an important object during the rapprochement subphase, whereby the toddler forms an inner image of the father that is often idealized (Mahler, Pine, & Bergman, 1975). Abelin proposed that during this period, the father represents a stable island of external reality, and is experienced as a less ambivalent alternative, vis--vis the mother (Abelin, 1975, pp. 243-244). Both Mahler and Abelin thought that a stable image of the father was necessary for a healthy resolution of the ambivalence associated with the rapprochement subphase. In optimal situations, the emotional and behavioral manifestations of rapprochement will subside as the child finds an optimal distance from the mother and resolves the conflicts associated with this phase. However, left unresolved, the contrasting tendencies of rapprochement will not be internalized, which leaves the child prone to excessive separation anxiety, depression, demandingness, envy, possessiveness, and temper outburst. Many of these manifestations are indications that the child has split the object world into good and bad, which disrupts the childs ability to achieve what Mahler referred to as libidinal object constancy. Achieving constancy of the object encompasses, in part, the ability to maintain the inner representation of the object in its absence, in addition to the capacity to unify the good and bad aspects of the object into one whole representation. A central component of this process is constructing a unified self-representation that becomes demarcated from a blended and integrated object representation (Mahler, Pine, & Bergman, 1975, p. 108). Drawing from what is known about Sams early childhood, it is likely that he was attached to his father, evidenced by his mother having referred to him as a daddys boy. However, Sams normative turn to his father as a less ambivalent alternative (Abelin, 1975, p. 244), was ended prematurely when father left the family. It was at this juncture that his behavior and his relationship with his mother deteriorated and

Kim A. Jones

53

he became violent and out-of-control. There may have been several reasons behind Sams regression; however, it cannot be ruled out how the loss of his father may have exacerbated the emotional and behavioral manifestations of the rapprochement crisishis father, as an external island of reality, had been pulled out from under him. Further evidence of unresolved rapprochement issues can then be seen in the pattern of interaction Sam engaged in with his mother, and how he reacted each time his mother remarried: he became out-of-control and violent, and at one point even said his stepfather was trying to take my place. As Sam was unable to successfully negotiate the rapprochement crisis and the powerful affects associated with this phase, he resorted to splitting as a principle defense. Kernberg (1976) hypothesized that splitting is geared toward keeping apart introjections and identifications of opposite quality: the ideal, good self, and object representations are protected from contamination, by bad self and object representations (p. 67). The aggression connected to the bad self and object representations can be projected outward onto others who then become threatening, bad external objects that must be controlled, and/or directed toward the self (Kernberg, 1966; Mahler, 1966). Sam directed his aggression both inward upon himself and outwardly toward his mother and each stepfather that entered his life. Freud and Burlinghams (1943, 1973) observational studies showed that developing an idealization of an absent father can serve developmental purposes. Through this process, children create intrapsychically that which is missing in their reality-based lives. Along similar lines Nagera (1970) and Wolfenstein (1966) hypothesized that the child holds onto, or actively creates in fantasy, the object that is missing, but still needed. Burgner (1985) postulated that the idealized father representation is created out of loss and functions to keep both the object and the self intact. Finally, Nunberg (1955) thought the idealized paternal representation acted as a bridge to an attachment to a real man who could become a father figure. Other psychoanalytic writers have shed light on the hazards involved in the formation of an idealized image of father. Krueger (1983), for example, thought that fixation on an object that is not real may hinder the internalization of more enduring psychic structures, while Altschul (1968) saw this form of idealization as robbing the ego of the necessary energies needed for age-specific developmental tasks. Newman and Schwam (1979) posed the idea that such idealizations never go through the normal deidealization phase, which acts to disrupt the internalization of narcissistic structures and hinders the capacity to regulate self-esteem.

54

PSYCHOANALYTIC SOCIAL WORK

Sam clearly created an idealized image of his missing father. When considering the mixed reviews of such an idealization within the context of psychoanalytic theory, it is important to assess the impact of this idealization on his functioning and overall development. It is possible that Sam initially coped with the sudden loss of his father by creating an image that substituted for the father that had been present. Sam was attached to his father and very much needed his father at such a critical phase in his life. It is thus likely that the idealization, at least initially, served him developmentally. However, preserving the ideal father, primarily through the mechanism of splitting, resulted in (1) continuous disruptions due to the relational and affective instability splitting causes; (2) the inability to become attached to his stepfathers (or other men in his life) due to the simultaneous preservation of the good internal father and projection of the bad internal father onto each stepfather; and (3) the identity confusion Sam experienced as a result of not achieving object constancy, particularly the lack of integration of self and object images in regard to fatheras evidenced by his fear of becoming like father. TRANSFERENCE AND COUNTERTRANSFERENCE ISSUES In working with patients, it is important to consider both maternal and paternal dynamics, as both pertain to transference and countertransference manifestations. Patients who enter treatment with paternal deficits and/or distortions may unconsciously project these onto the therapist. It is therefore important for therapists to recognize the paternal roots of such clinical manifestations. The patient might, for example, experience the therapist (male or female) as an idealized or overly critical and harsh paternal figure. In other instances the patient might expect the therapist to meet unmet paternally based needs. Understanding the origins of these distortions and deficits is crucial in developing a sound working alliance with the patient. It is equally important for therapists to understand and be aware of issues as they relate to their own fathers and how these emerge when working with certain clients. CONCLUSION Regardless of whether one is working with a child, adolescent or adult, fully assessing each of the five domains described earlier can act

Kim A. Jones

55

to guide the therapist in determining the degree to which paternal dynamics, deprivations and/or distortions have influenced the reasons for which the patient is seeking help. Patients who come to treatment for difficulties in any of these domains may present with a variety of issuesself-esteem, intimacy, behavioral and affective control, identity issues, inhibitionsthat may have their roots in either the direct fatherchild relationship, or its absence. The importance of becoming familiar with the unique contributions fathers make in their childrens growth and development is made clear by past and current societal trends. It is commonly known that approximately half of all marriages end in divorce and perhaps less commonly known, that one-third of all children under the age of 18 years live apart from their biological fathers. In 1995, one-third of all births were to unmarried women (Dudley & Stone, 2001). As an outcome of these trends, America has been referred to as a fatherless nation (Blankenhorn, 1995). In spite of these long-standing trends, and some evidence of a renewed interest in fathers, there remains no comprehensive and cohesive body of theory about fatherhood in the psychoanalytic literature (Trowell & Etchegoyen, 2002, p. 33). One factor that makes such a comprehensive theory difficult is the ever-changing role fathers have occupied over the centuries (see Abramovitch, 1997). For these reasons, it is important that we continue to make strides in the advancement of theory as it relates to the role of the father, and the use of this knowledge to inform our practice with those who come for help around difficulties that emanate from their relationships with their fathers. REFERENCES
Abelin, E. (1971). The role of the father in separation-individuation. In J. McDevitt & C.F. Settlage (Eds.), Essays in honor of Margaret Mahler (pp. 229-252). New York, NY: International Universities Press, Inc. Abelin, E. (1975). Some further observations and comments on the earliest role of the father. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 56, 293-302. Abramovitch, H. (1997). Images of the father in psychology and religion. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 19-32). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Aichorn, A. (1935). Wayward youth. New York, NY: Viking Press. Altschul, S. (1968). Denial and ego arrest. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 16, 301-318. Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America. New York, NY: Basic Books.

56

PSYCHOANALYTIC SOCIAL WORK

Blos, P. (1967). The second individuation process of adolescence. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 22, 162-186. Blos, P. (1984). Son and father. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 32, 301-324. Blos, P. (1985). Son and father. New York, NY: The Free Press. Blos, P. (1987). Freud and the father complex. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 42, 425-441. Burgner, M. (1985). The Oedipal experience: Effects on development of an absent father. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 66, 311-320. Burlingham, D. (1973). The pre-oedipal infant-father relationship. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 28, 23-47. Davids, M.F. (2002). Fathers in the internal world. In J. Trowell & A. Etchegoyen (Eds.), The importance of fathers: A psychoanalytic re-evaluation (pp. 67-92). London, England: Brunner/Routledge. Dudley, J. & Stone, G. (2001). Fathering at risk. Amherst, NY: Prometheus. Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1941). A revised psychopathology of the psychosis and psychoneurosis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 22, 250-279. Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1944). Endopsychic structure considered in terms of object-relationships. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 25, 70-93. Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1952). An object-relations theory of personality. New York, NY: Basic Books. Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1958). On the nature and aims of psycho-analytical treatment. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 39, 374-385. Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1968). Synopsis of an object-relations theory of the personality. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 44, 224-225. Ferenczi, S. (1914). The nosology of male homosexuality: (Homoerotism). Sex in psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1940. Freud, A. & Burlingham, D.T. (1943). War and children. New York, NY: Medical War Books. Freud, A. & Burlingham, D.T. (1973). Infants without families: Reports on the Hamstead nurseries 1939-45. In The writings of Anna Freud (Vol. 3). New York, NY: International Universities Press, Inc. Freud, S. (1921). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 18, pp. 67-143). London: Hogarth Press, 1955. Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 4, pp. 1-338). London: Hogarth Press, 1953. Gauthier, Y. (1965). The mourning reaction of a ten-and-a-half-year-old boy. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 20, 481-494. Herzog, J.M. (1980). Sleep disturbance and father hunger in 18- to 28-month-old boys. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 35, 219-233. Herzog, J.M. (2001). Father hunger. London: The Analytic Press. Huttunen, M.O. & Niskanen, P. (1978). Prenatal loss of father and psychiatric disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 429-431.

Kim A. Jones

57

Kernberg, O. (1966). Structural derivatives of object relationships. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 47, 236-253. Kernberg, O. (1976). Object relations theory and clinical psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Jason Aronson, Inc. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York, NY: International Universities Press, Inc. Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York, NY: International Universities Press, Inc. Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Krueger, D.W. (1983). Childhood parent loss: Developmental impact and adult psychopathology. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 37, 582-592. Lamb, M.E. (1997). The development of father-infant relationships. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 104-120). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mahler, M.S. (1966). Notes on the development of basic moods: The depressive affect in psychoanalysis. pp. 161-169. In R.M. Loewenstein, L.M. Newman, M. Schur, & A.J. Solnit (Eds.), PsychoanalysisA general psychology. New York: International Universities Press. Mahler, M.S. (1968). On human symbiosis and the vicissitudes of individuation. New York, NY: International Universities Press, Inc. Mahler, M.S. & Gosliner, B.J. (1955). On symbiotic child psychosis: Genetic, dynamic and restitutive aspects. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 10, 195-212. Mahler, M.S. & McDevitt, J. B. (1968). Observations on adaptation and defense in statu nascendi. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 37, 1-21. Mahler, M.S., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Nagera, H. (1970). Childrens reaction to the death of important objects. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 25, 360-400. Neubauer, P.B. (1960). The one-parent child and his Oedipal development. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 15, 286-309. Newman, J. & Schwam, J. (1979). The fatherless child. In J. Noshpitz, J. Call, R. Cohen, & I. Berlin (Eds.), Basic handbook of child psychiatry (Vol. 1, pp. 357-372). New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc. Nunberg, H. (1955). Principles of psychoanalysis. New York: International Universities Press, Inc. Phares, V. (1997). Psychological adjustment, maladjustment, and father-child relationships. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 261-283). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Ross, J. (1979). Fathering: A review of some psychoanalytic contributions on paternity. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 60, 317-328. Santrock, J.W. (1970). Influence of onset and type of paternal absence on the first four Eriksonian developmental crises. Developmental Psychology, 3, 273-274. Trowell, J. & Etchegoyen, A. (2002). The importance of fathers: A psychoanalytic re-evaluation. London, England: Brunner/Routledge. Trunnell, T.L. (1968). The absent fathers childrens emotional disturbances. Archives of General Psychiatry, 19, 180-188.

58

PSYCHOANALYTIC SOCIAL WORK

Wallerstein, J. (1984). Children of divorce: Preliminary report of a ten-year follow-up of young children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 444-458. Wallerstein, J. (1987). Children of divorce: Report of a ten-year follow-up of early latency-age children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 199-211. Wallerstein, J. & Blakeslee, S. (1989). Second chances: Men, women, and children a decade after divorce. New York, NY: Ticknor & Fields. Wallerstein, J. & Kelly, J. (1974). The effects of parental divorce: The adolescent experience. In J. Anthony & C. Koupernik (Eds.), The child and his family: Children at psychiatric risk. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Wallerstein, J. & Kelly, J. (1976). The effects of parental divorce: Experiences of the child in later latency. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 256-269. Wallerstein, J. & Kelly, J. (1979). Children and divorce: A review. Social Work, 24, 468-475. Wallerstein, J. & Kelly, J. (1980). Surviving the breakup: How children cope with divorce. New York, NY: Basic Books. Wallerstein, J., Lewis, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2000). The unexpected legacy of divorce: A 25 year landmark study. New York, NY: Hyperion. Winnicott, W.D. (1964). The child, the family and the outside world. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Wolfenstein, M. (1966). How is mourning possible? The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 21, 93-123.

Manuscript Submitted: 03/21/06 Final Revision Received: 07/31/06 doi:10.1300/J032v14n01_03